England [sic/[FP's sic]] is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions. Yet only two lifetimes ago, Britain ruled the largest and wealthiest empire in the history of humankind. Britain controlled a quarter of the earth's land and a quarter of the earth's population.

Oh, there's where they cut it off? Well, obviously he was in the middle of making a point. But you know the rule in journalism: Taking things out of context is okay when you do it to hurt conservatives. But I happen to have my Kindle copy of Romney's book "No Apology: Believe in America," so it's easy for me to give you the context. Here are the next 4 paragraphs:

Late in the eighteenth century, after the loss of their American colonies...

... the British set out to compensate for what had been lost, first by defeating Napoleonic France and then by expanding the reach of the crown in colonies from India to the tip of South America and from Africa to the islands of the Western Pacific.

And all that imperialism by the British doesn't make them look too appealing.

Britain’s might was military, having built the most powerful navy the world had ever seen. But what enabled their military superiority was their industrial might. The British had pioneered the Industrial Revolution, and they enthusiastically promoted free trade, understanding the huge export potential for their products. By 1860, the nation’s economy was the biggest in the world.

Here's the great compliment to the British, but you know there's a big but...

But maintaining leadership proved more difficult than achieving it. Whereas other nations extended the manufacturing revolution by embracing new technology and innovation, the British reversed course and tried to contain it. The country’s culture of class immobility stymied the entrepreneurialism and initiative that propel a competitive economy.

Here's the serious critique.

From owner to laborer, the British were eager to protect the status quo. Industrialists secured subsidies for themselves and tariffs on foreigners rather than face foreign competition and technology head-on. When subsidies proved insufficient for the most unproductive businesses, the government took them over. The nation spent national resources to keep sick companies alive rather than inventing new ones and investing in those that were strong.

Britain’s economic missteps were compounded when it was forced to fight and endure the cost of two world wars. By the end of World War II, its national debt had tripled. Massive loans were required to shore up the ailing economy; they came from its former colony.

Now Foreign Policy — a respected journal? — ends its out of context squib with snark: "Its roads and houses are small? The trees probably aren't the right height either." I'm giving you the whole context that Foreign Policy didn't want to deal with. It's about the British decline into socialism. What do you say we take that seriously?

Socialism/capitalism — that's how campaign 2012 has been framed. Let's stare that issue in the face. Sorry if the Brits' feelings are hurt, but this is about us.

And, apparently, the big contretemps between the Romster and Cameron over the Olympics was a lot more friendly, more jovial than the media (Limey or Establishment Lefty) wants to let on, but, yeah, we're trying to save somebody who's destroying America and that Mormon guy actually talks (and acts) like a real American.

"Ann, do you think Obama is a socialist? Do you think he wants to turn America into a socialist country?"

I don't know if he believes hardcore, but he is taking us in that direction and his campaign has framed the election as what I believe is a choice between socialism and capitalism.

I don't think he has a hidden agenda. I think he's a good person who means well and is fairly vague/pragmatic, but right now, we're being presented with a choice, and if this is the choice, Americans should and will pick capitalism.

Romney makes some good points about the UK vs. Europe...but in going into the old Free Trade for Freedom Lovers Republican mantra...ignores that Continental Europe threw tariffs against Britain so they could develop their own industries the UK dominated, briefly...steel, mechanized clothing mills, railroad equipment.Same as the US did.

And when the Germans, in particular, developed leading technology...they were in no rush to give it to China, or the UK so factories could be sited overseas so the Wealthy Elites (Jobs Creators in Republican parlace) could exploit maximum profit for offshoring German ideas. So the Germans did not send all their organic chemical production, synthetic dyes away from the new German middle Class that was forming over high tech kept in Germany. Same with steel, edges in electric systems and electric motors, German "best" internal combustion engines and auto tech.

Not like America, which as soon as a new technology is invented by Americans...has the Ruling Elite already plotting how to maximize money going to a few by siting the tech in China, with rich people's capital building the factories tens of thousands of Chinese will soon work in.

That is a somewhat simple outline of history and rather skewed. The Brits fought France from the mid 17th century to 1815 with some interludes of diplomacy, or war continued by other means, and in the process created a financial system that enabled them to carry on that fight against a 4-5 times larger and wealthier enemy. The American Revolution was just a sideshow in that struggle - a major sideshow, but still a sideshow.

However, I suppose Romney was out to make a point about how you can have the world by the tail and still lose it all rather than a historical study.

"socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

Hi Ann, That's a great and revealing post. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Romney, he makes a case that can and should d be debated, not sidestepped. Rather than debate, Foreign Policy selectively quotes and snarks. That is propaganda, not commentary. And that speaks volumes about the opposition's unserious cowardice, intellectual laziness, and lack of rationally defensible ideas.

Andy R, reread BO's you didn't build that speech. How much of GM does the federal government still own. Reflect on the phrase "or at least control" in light of the EPA's attempts to direct energy exploration away from economically viable sources like oil and coal. So in answer to your question, and on the basis of your offered definition, yes!

Four Point SixI just want everyone to be absolutely clear on what this "narrative of aggrievement" is all about. It's about Obama's proposal that the marginal tax rate on income over $400,000 should rise from 35% to 39.6%.

This is what America's most prosperous citizens are up in arms about. This is why Barack Obama is an enemy of capitalism. These are the spiteful shackles he proposes to use to subjugate America's engines of job creation. It's the reason America's wealthiest citizens are so frightened about the future of their country.

4.6 percentage points. Just let that sink in.

Emphasis mine. And no, I'm not a socialist. People who support rich people paying more in taxes aren't socialists.

The Anglo-Saxons are known for their laziness, stupidity, and snobbery. Still they do a few things right. They're very good at civil administration. For the last two centuries the best administered lands in the world have all been led by the English or by people who have absorbed English ideas about governing. It's indeed surprising that a snaggle toothed people who never learned how to fry an egg achieved such mastery of themselves and so many other peoples, but there you have it. You can argue that most of their success came from harnessing the genius and ferocity of their Celtic populations, but that begs the question. Why was it that the Anglosaxons harnessed the Celts rather than the other way around. It's one of history's great mysteries.

Andy R, rich people already pay more in taxes. But that never stops people from asking for still more. So Andy R, how much more? And even then, how much more next year and the year after that. Answer that.

You can pretend that there is some obscuring, history-cloaked nuance to it, but there really isn't. Unless you have some method of controlling the rest of the world, as the British found out you cannot, you will play by open rules including cheaters and the ambitious who will gladly step on the grave of your perceived control on their way to the future.

The reason for Britain's decline was not just that other nations refused to let them stay on top, but because Britain thought it was their right, and therefore didn't have to play ball. They were wrong.

Such thinking is the lesson of Achellies' heal. It only happens to the guys big enough to be fooled by their own bullshit. I don't want this nation following the British path. We need to play, and play hard. We we need to be our leanest and cleanest, and shed the bureaucratic handicaps, including the ones we think protect us.

Modern socialists have learned to accept that controlling industry is sufficient. Owning it is superfluous when you can say...force the public to buy their product, force the industry to pay you a dividend, and cap any profit you haven't already taken. Sounds a lot like his plan for our healthcare doesn't it?

What else do business owners do? Well sometimes they hire and fire management.

"Congressional testimony by Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis, as well as internal emails released by the House Oversight Committee, indicate that Bank of America was threatened with the firings of the management and board of Bank of America as well as damaging the relationship between the bank and federal regulators, if Bank of America did not go through with the acquisition of Merrill Lynch."

Seems like he has the bases covered. It doesn't matter if it's "socialism", it absolutely is government control.

That may be the most disingenuous post you've ever written here regarding economics & taxes.

Why in the world would it stop at 4.6 pts only on "the rich", when that won't even cover 1/5 of the ANNUAL trillion dollar deficits this Administration is racking up?

His last two budgets have gotten ZERO votes from his own party - proving how pathetic his fiscal policies are and will continue to be.

Tax increases would have to be massive, or cover everyone paying any income taxes now, unless there are meaningful spending cuts, too.

His last two budgets prove he's completely unserious about reducing the deficits, or controlling spending. He's spending like a socialist, and he speaks like a socialist ("spread the wealth around", "increase taxes for fairness", "you didn't build that, someone else did that").

Prof. Althouse, I'm a long time reader, first time commenter. But can I just say you are wonderful. I love your fair, intellectually honest, tough-minded approach. Thank you for bringing this serious omission up.

England, that tiny island, is the home office of the Anglosphere. Which includes America. For obvious historical reasons we are not tied to England as Canada, Australia and New Zealand are. But we are part of the family. Take away that tiny island and the world becomes a colder existential place for America. What makes us family? Liberty. An organic commitment to liberty that began in that tiny island with Magna Carta. It is the great Anglo-Saxon contribution to the ascent of man. And that leftists go into their rants of racism when that is declared makes it no less a fact.

Ann Althouse said..."Ann, do you think Obama is a socialist? Do you think he wants to turn America into a socialist country?"

I don't know if he believes hardcore, but he is taking us in that direction and his campaign has framed the election as what I believe is a choice between socialism and capitalism.

----------------

I am struck by how well the "You didn't built it" argument can just as easily be applied to other forms of wealth, beyond businesses.

Real estate. You didn't build that house worth 400,000 dollars. People educated in public schools travelling on government roads built that house. The government allowed you to borrow money from a bank. Gave you a government mortgage deduction right. It is only worth 400,000 because it is protected by Hero Government people. And the reason your house in 400K while a nearly identical house in a black slum is worth only 35,000 dollars is that wealth disparity is created by inadequate numbers of Government Heroes that should make that black slum as desirable a place to live as what the Heroes do in your neighborhood.

Inventions, creations, and patents You didn't invent that widget on your own. Or write that big-selling book or screenplay on your own. Without Hero teachers from the government, you would never have made something businesses now want to buy rights to for. So you really owe government most of the money from your invention or creative product.

You didn't build a better city or state

The only reason Chicago is not as prosperous as Milwaukee is that Chicago has more needy people and not enough Government Hero employees to help those needy Chicago people. Enough to be like cities and suburbs and rural areas West of Chicago, North of Chicago, and downstate south of Chicago. People outside Chicago did not build better cities, other people, including people in Chicago - helped them have better cities with lower taxes.

Same with States, as the reason N Dakota is lower crime, better educated, with a higher standard of living than Arkansas is government has not done enough to narrow the disparities and redistribute the excess. N Dakota did not build itself any better than Arkansas did. N Dakota owes..

Actually a strong argument can be made that Obama fits the bill as a "Western Marxist" according to that section in the "Marxism" article of the Encyclopedia Britannica [with my emphasis]:

There are two main forms of Marxism in the West: that of the traditional communist parties and the more diffuse “New Left” form, which has come to be known as “Western Marxism.” ...

Western Marxism has been shaped primarily by the failure of the socialist revolution in the Western world. Western Marxists were concerned less with the actual political or economic practice of Marxism than with its philosophical interpretation, especially in relation to cultural and historical studies. In order to explain the inarguable success of capitalist society, they felt they needed to explore and understand non-Marxist approaches and all aspects of bourgeois culture. Eventually, they came to believe that traditional Marxism was not relevant to the reality of modern Western society....

Later, when the working class appeared to them to be too well integrated into the capitalist system, the Western Marxists supported more anarchistic tactics. In general, their views are more in accord with those found in Marx's early, humanist writings rather than with his later, dogmatic interpretations.

Western Marxism has found support primarily among intellectuals rather than the working class, and orthodox Marxists have judged it impractical. Nevertheless, the Western Marxists' emphasis on Marx's social theory and their critical assessment of Marxist methodology and ideas have coloured the way even non-Marxists view the world.

Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it.

Hell, Andy, why do you think this 'they didn't build that, the government did' nonsense pissed everyone off? It's all in your quote, in black and white. The government built the roads and the schools and they are entitled to their pound of flesh.

As for Romney's point, it is important to remember that the top dog can get knocked off rather quickly. They are trying awfully hard to make his visit a failure, but all we've seen so far is weak sauce.

Mitt had the wooden strength of an analyst sent to solve a problem from a distance.

Ann had a perfect ten open personality that radiated a compassion and reachability that is seldom seen in any person, except in a few persons who were severely hurt or handicapped but came through it. Like FDR did.

Together they were a winning team with Ann filling in Mitt's weak area.

Mitt needs to use her in his appearances. Maybe she can help in public with the VP story line coming up soon.

I've got news for you. The context makes it WORSE, when you note the condescension and ridicule in the tone of his voice in the entire diatribe.

This was no 2 or 3 word slip, this was the entire mask slipping, revealing who he truly is and what he really believes.

And why not? What the hell did he or Michelle ever do for their success? Did they work hard? No evidence of it. Are they really, really smart? No evidence of it (and the evidence must be hidden/sealed for a reason).

Althouse says: I don't know if he believes hardcore, but he is taking us in that direction and his campaign has framed the election as what I believe is a choice between socialism and capitalism.

How so? By supporting a progressive income tax with higher marginal tax rates on the wealthy and supporting national health insurance? These aren't particularly socialist concepts and they've been standard Democratic (and in some cases Republican) public policy agenda items for decades. They certainly were part of what Obama said he was for during the 2008 election. What makes you think there's something else being framed here?

"Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan—and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term."

Full version:

"I'll cut out government spending that’s not working, that we can’t afford, but I’m also going to ask anybody making over $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rates they were paying under Bill Clinton, back when our economy created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history and everybody did well. Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan -- and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term."

The RNC was being incredibly gracious to Obama with that "hatchet job." In the RNC version, Obama looks clueless; in the original version, he looks clueless and desperate. Having a dismal record of his own, he's now running on Clinton's record!

(Notably absent from Obama's Brief History of the Clinton Presidency: cutting taxes on capital gains.)

Althouse wrote:'I don't think he has a hidden agenda. I think he's a good person who means well and is fairly vague/pragmatic, but right now, we're being presented with a choice, and if this is the choice, Americans should and will pick capitalism.'

'a good person'?I'm more than a little surprised that you think this; the man is a liar of the highest order and what's worse is that he seems to believe his lies.

It would be hard to go wrong taking a policy statement and realize he is doing the exact opposite of what he stated; A transparent administration? His has been opaque. Close Gitmo? Nope. Against gay marriage? He is now for it.

Uphold voting rights? Not if you believe in making sure elections are clean.

No voter suppression? Well, if you're dressed like a 60s throwback and threaten 'crackers' at the polls then that's ok.

He will make the economy better when in fact his actions have extended and worsen the recession.

A better, more open foreign policy? Let's hear it for killing US citizens (not that I disagree on this one)

I'm sure there are many more examples, so please, Professor, don't say he's a 'good person'; he isn't.

We know that Obama's father was a socialist and that the title of Obama's first book were "Dreams from My Father."

We know that in his teen years Obama's father-figure/mentor was a Frank Marshall Davis, a communist.

We know that Obama gravitated to the Marxist professors and students in college.

We know that after Obama moved to Chicago he became a member of Rev. Wright's radical black power church and that Wright was another of his radical mentors who supplied the title of Obama's second book.

We know that Obama had a sufficiently close relationship with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, the two top leaders of the Weather Underground, such that he launched his political career from their home.

We know by Stanley Kurtz's research that Obama had much closer ties to various socialist organizations than he has acknowledged.

We know that Obama has lied and concealed much about his background.

I was a radical leftist in my younger days. Everything about Obama says unreconstructed leftist to me. We can argue about what flavor and degree of socialist/Marxist/collectivist he is, but we can't change this leopard's spots.

The really pathetic things is what Obama said is what he, and you, really believe and your too big of cowards to admit it.

It happens to be true. What I'm saying is the GOP has to hack it up to make it seem worse. Romney's "build that tour" is full of ungrateful companies who've taken millions and millions dollars of government money and they're crying that their poor feelings were hurt by Obama?

Shanna said...Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it.

Hell, Andy, why do you think this 'they didn't build that, the government did' nonsense pissed everyone off? =================They will be even more pissed off when they realize the Obama/Warren argument can just as readily be used to justify government taking more from other forms of wealth to redistribute it in the name of government actually did make that wealth happens and so deserves a fair chunk of it.Home equity.The need to transfer more money from good suburbs the suburbanites didn;t really build - to people in places like Chicago.The need to levelize money each person in each state has, because the Constitution does not say states are "built" different than each other.

Once people realize the Warren-Obama logic is not just to establish a government claim to the value of a business and some rich guy that owns it.....but lay claim to any chunk of individual wealth or state 'wealth" they seek to redistribute....

And to all you saying it's only another 4.6% or its's only 39.6%, read my lips "It is a big f-ing tipping point!"

When viewed in conjunction with a 2,000 page healthcare law, and numerous Exec orders that Prez Obama has [illegally?] inserted into the country, this multitude of tax increases are a big f-ing tipping point.

"People who support rich people paying more in taxes aren't socialists."

They may or may not be. What they indisputably are is either a socialist or piss-poor at math (or both). Remember this is the guy that openly said that he would favor a tax increase out of a sense of fairness, even if it resulted in lower tax revenues. Your 4.6 is purely punitive, it sure as hell won't make the tiniest dent in our fiscal problems. For that matter, if you go with 65 instead of 4.6, that won't come close to solving the problem either.

Its hilarious to see how much heavy lifting the legacy media has to do to pull obama's sorry carcus across the finish line. They have another 3 months of this, I don't think they have that sort of indurance anymore. They should eat more wheaties and lick less obama ass.

"And no, I'm not a socialist. People who support rich people paying more in taxes aren't socialists. "

Wikipedia is not very reliable on this topic but they do get more than hatboy.

"Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy; the principal economic goal of fascism is to achieve national autarky to secure national independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[21] It promotes regulated private enterprise and private property contingent whenever beneficial to the nation and state enterprise and state property whenever necessary to protect its interests.[21] At the same time, fascists are hostile to financial capital, plutocracy, and "the power of money".

What Obama prefers is fascism, not that different from the Democrat Party the past 30 years.

"But it's SOCIALISM! to go back to those previous rates. Is that what people believe?"

If 4.6 remotely approached a solution to our fiscal problems, then no it wouldn't necessarily be socialism. But when the 4.6 is done expressly for scoring points in class warfare, then it just might be socialism (or something very similar; so similar as to make it a distinction without a difference). Given the other things he's said and written, and things that have come to light about his past (New Party, etc.), he sures seems enamored of ideas championed by socialists. OTOH, considering how many bald-faced lies he's told, he just might be an Objectivist deep down in his heart.

Democratic Socialist, yeah. Stanley Kurtz had a good book about his political associations back in the 80's and 90's, and I've seen no evidence that the scales have fallen from his eyes. On a national stage he's limited in what he can say, but he occasionally slips, and you get "spread the wealth around" or "you didn't build that."

"It was in the 90%s at some point. 70% in the 1970s. 50% in the 1980s"

I'm assuming then you also noticed the deductions that were available back then. And the fact that no one paid those rates. And that the deal was to remove those deductions in exchange for a lower tax rate. And now you want to start cranking it up again. And everyone here knows, including you, that when the new tax rate doesnt raise enough money, your going to start up with this whole class thing and raise the rates "just" another 4%. Like back in the 50's And then when that doesnt work, raise it another 4%. And eventually, since things are only static in your pretend world, eventually even you would notice the detrimental effect on the economy. But since it would be making everyone equally poor, and because you are deluded in thinking it wouldnt happen to you personally, you wont care. Garage is pretty much in the same boat, he blasted business earlier in this thread, completely ignoring the fact that most businesses are a one owner business with a handful employees, and that the owner may have had some lean years where he/she didnt make a dime after paying his/her bills and paying the employees, despite working 80 hr weeks. But if the business is a success, then screw it. Time to clean it out. Only fair.

Replacing a bust of Lincoln with one of Churchill is totally American!

Good point. Churchill was the son of an American mother and a father from the British Empire. We don't need that sort of thing in the Oval Office! Anyone can see that a nice mid-western Republican is preferable to that.

I didn't know it used to be so high. It was in the 90%s at some point. 70% in the 1970s. 50% in the 1980s. It was at 39.6% under Clinton. Now it's at 35%.

But it's SOCIALISM! to go back to those previous rates. Is that what people believe?

7/26/12 10:31 PM

If I have to pay those rates then so should you. As long as I have only one vote there is no justifiable moral reason why I should pay one dollar more than you. Working five months of the year just for the feds and for what? Most of it being spent on moochers a relatively little that directly benefits those pay the taxes.

The Republicans should allow taxmagedon to occur in January. Let the people who vote democrat take it good and hard for a year. Democrats like taxes and they pay them. A year later they will be rabid TEA Partiers. And as Glen Reynolds has said, repeal the Eisenhower gross receipt tax repeal on the move industry, bring it back and broaden it to include cable and over the air broadcasting and all music and entertainment purchases and downloads.

Replacing a bust of Lincoln with one of Churchill is totally American!

I don't mind that. It's the larger pattern of radical left associations that bothers me.

In 2008 I knew little about Obama other than that he was supposed to have given a great speech in 2004. But then I learned of his long-term association with the black power preacher, Rev. Wright and Weather Underground communist, Bill Ayers.

You don't just know people like that and have close working relationships with them unless you are pretty radical yourself. The same goes if you've been tight with people like David Duke and Tom Metzger -- white supremacists.

No way in hell Americans would have voted for a conservative with strong KKK and White Aryan Resistance links in his background and rightly so. Americans wouldn't have voted for Obama either, had those facts not been downplayed and whitewashed by the media, then made radioactive for conservatives to mention.

I'm still amazed that Obama won the 2008 nomination, much less the presidency.

But it's SOCIALISM! to go back to those previous rates. Is that what people believe?

Nobody actually paid taxes at those rates, though. I remember before the tax code changed in '86 everybody had a money losing oil well or chinchilla farm. People were writing off cars and home offices, and it was all normal. When they lowered rates they got rid of a huge number of deductions people were abusing.

Unless you added those deductions back raising rates back to those high levels really would raise effective tax rates higher than they've ever been in the US.

===============Churchill did nothing of the kind. He & the Commonwealth was 3rd tier behind Stalin and the Soviets and the US forces and people of the industrial civilization America once had. The best things the UK had going for it was the fact it was an island, that the island was protected by the Royal Navy from a Wehrmacht that would have gone through the UK faster than they did Norway or Poland.

Churchill is the neocon Saint of wars of adventure. He was the last Lion of British Imperialism.

If Romney gets the bust back, he would be wise to see it as a lesson in how Empires in economic decline can overreach - be it Churchill or the man the Neocons hailed as the New American Churchill bringing Freedom!! to noble purple-fingered Muslims.

C-fudd is just like his hero Obama, back-pedaling to cover what he said earlier. He's trying to pretend now that he's horrified by the "you didn't build it" quote but when it came out his knee-jerk reaction was to belittle Steve Jobs, saying he was "only of many" at Apple.

That's because Fudd himself is a loser, stewing in his flophouse room with bitter resentment at people who have actually accomplished something, which he never has.

"do you think Obama is a socialist? Do you think he wants to turn America into a socialist country?"

Well, I am willing to take President Obama at his word that he is not a Socialist, even though he joined and sought the endorsement of, a Socialist political party in his earliest forays into Chicago politics.

However, the more interesting question to me is, if he was an openly avowed Socialist, what would he do any different?

My problem with Romney's comments is that he got his history wrong. Britain maintained free trade (unlike the US - Hawley-Smoot anyone? The US and Republican Parties were fans of tariffs from the mid 1800s on)right up to the 1930s. We even dismantled all the laws requiring British shipping trade to be carried in British ships (unlike, say, the US). The reason we got so poor after the end of WW2 is because we fought 2 large wars for long periods of time while the US was at peace and we liquidated lots of assets to do so.

But unlike most countries, we paid all our debts back.

I can agree that the UK made a wrong turn after the Second World War in nationalising so many industries. It took the reforms of the 1980s to point the UK in a better direction

I don't mind politicians drawing on history to make a point. I'd prefer it if they got their facts right.

Britian was primarily excise tax funded during the growth period of the Empire, and they subsidized and protected home industry just like every other nation. Your belief Britian was the paaragon of free trade is a fantasy. Was the East India Company an example of free trade?

I don't believe any of us are "good". Often, when I voice this belief, it is received with disapproval. For example, when someone calls me a "good person" I reply that "I am not good" and the common reply to that is "Oh, yes you ARE! You are a VERY good person!".

Well, no, I am not. But it is not a depressing truth to know for me. It is an essential truth.

I don't think he has a hidden agenda. I think he's a good person who means well and is fairly vague/pragmatic, but right now, we're being presented with a choice, and if this is the choice, Americans should and will pick capitalism.

See, Althouse. This is where you and me differ. I look at where he came from. Who hangs out with. What he has said, but more importantly what he has done.The current resident absolutely despises you and me as hopeless rubes in need of controlling. He holds anyone who dares to disagree in contempt.He is not a good man. Good men build- add something to society. He has done nothing but subtract.

Bullshit. Without Churchill, the Nazi would still be in control of Europe.

Hitlers Operation "sea lion".There were landing barges, filled with equipment, waiting in the canals of Holland. Nazi troops being marshaled to embarkation points. The Luftwaffe was assigned to softening up landing zones and demoralizing the British people.England had so many Hurricanes and Spitfires the Air Ministry was renting farmers barns to store them in. But if Goering had pressed his attack another 24 hours Britain wouldn't have had enough pilots to man their planes.England was sinking under the weight of material Lend Lease was sending them.

"Well, obviously he was in the middle of making a point. But you know the rule in journalism: Taking things out of context is okay when you do it to hurt conservatives."

-- I'm seeing this sentiment stated more vocally in places other than places like Ace of Spades, Hot Air, etc. I think we've reached that tipping point where journalism has lost most of its luster. Which is sad; I like journalism. I didn't leave journalism, journalism left me.

I like how I keep being told it is taken out of context, but it really isn't. Obama is clearly trying to take agency away from the small business people who risked their financial livelihoods. Remember when agency was something to be treasured?

"do you think Obama is a socialist? Do you think he wants to turn America into a socialist country?"

I don't think Obama has any coherent or consistent economic views, aside from using government power to reward people he needs to vote for him.

He and his administration have no idea how the economy works, why it works, what makes it stop working, or what makes it work better. It's just there -- you figure out how to tap into it and take what you want. His philosophy is one that's popular when other competent people, both liberal and conservative, are overseeing a productive and largely free-market economy.

Unfortunately, he's in charge. Even more unfortunately, he has sycophants in Congress care more about party loyalty and getting their personal spoils than the long-term well-being of their constituents. And, as a crowning misfortune, both are corrupt and venal enough to abuse the power entrusted to them to enact capricious and counterproductive policies which make productive people less productive.

I don't understand why many people think the "do you think Obama is a socialist?" line is effective. It seems to come with assumptions like "do you even know what socialism is?" and "have you read Marx?" and "you keep using that word".

"Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

-- If that's the definition you want to use, then from the "didn't build it" and his agreement that he would raise taxes to earn less net money for the government if it made things fairer, and that we should spread the wealth around then... yeah, economically, he does think society should own or at least control property.

Looking at how he handled the bailouts, stepping in and choosing which dealerships to close and which debtors to pay, it sure sounds like "public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources."

Andy, you've made a much more powerful argument than you realize (and I normally don't think Obama is a socialist, but, with just that definition, he surely seems to lean that way.)

I don't think he has a hidden agenda. I think he's a good person who means well and is fairly vague/pragmatic...

I'm sure Obama means well, but that's true of most people, especially authoritarian leftists. Likewise, if you define "good" loosely enough, most people are good.

However, Obama misleads and lies way too much, even for a politician, to be good. No president in my lifetime has been more deceptive. Witness the many bald lies he told multiple times about Obamacare (You can keep your health plan. Health costs will bend down. My mother died because of the insureance companies.) Then there are the strawman arguments in almost all of his speeches. And just recently we learned that his "Dreams from My Father" memoir is heavily fictionalized to make Obama's political points.

Good people don't lie like Obama has.

As to his pragmatism -- where? All of his domestic policies lean strongly to the left, obviously recycled from the New Deal or the Great Society, and none of them have worked. Obama tried as hard as he could to close Gitmo and try KSM in New York City, but he was stopped by conservatives. In the end his policies in Iraq and Afghanistan amount to cutting and running as leftists wanted.

"do you think Obama is a socialist? Do you think he wants to turn America into a socialist country?"

Andy obviously isn't familiar with The Duck Theory.

Hey Andy, a friend of mine was forced to close his successful Cadillac dealership thanks to Obama. Cronyism at it's finest. Be a sport and put your money where your mouth is and write him a check and while you are at it write me the check for my GM bonds that I got screwed out of by Obama to bail out his union buds.

One has to give the British props for managing to have a globe spanning empire for over two hundred years and for most of that time it cost them 10 of GDP. Not shabby at all. However free traders they weren't. The Empire was purely a mercantile enterprises among the Commonwealth, no outsiders could trade freely within in it. Free trade for their exports but not for their imports.

"England" is sic'd because it was another Romney gaffe. England is not an island; it is a political unit on an island that it shares with Scotland and Wales. Scotland is not England. Although Wales was incorporated into England a few centuries ago, the Welsh do not recognize this and will tell you in no uncertain terms that they are not English and Wales is not England. And ethnic Scots and Welsh are not Anglo-Saxon; they are Celts. FP actually was correcting Romney's mistake when it substituted "Britain" for "England."

Every time the lefties start claiming that the "you didn't build it" line was taken out of context, they force someone out there to go back and read the whole paragraph to see if they've missed something. I don't think they realize how counterproductive this is for them. Obama said exactly what everyone is saying he said. The context confirms that (and as some have already said, makes it even more clear that's what he meant).

So, by all means, keep encouraging people to read the context. It's damning.

Romney's "tiny island" comment has received some attention here in the UK but that's mostly because he's made so many other gaffes during his visit that enterprising journalists have gone out in search of more to keep the story going.

So far, amongst other jems, he's become confused about the name of the country he's visiting (a common American error unfortunately, why are you unable to distinguish between Britain and England?), forgotten the name of the leader of the Labour Party, Ed Milliband, during a press conference with him (resorting to describing him as "Mr. Leader") and implied we're not terribly enthusiastic about The Olympics and might mess it up (to which the Prime Minster testily commented, in reference to a certain previous Olympics, "well, I suppose it's easier to organise if you hold them in the middle of nowhere".)

The journalists hunting for more Romney screw ups are mostly not from the left wing publications (who all have tiny readerships) but their far more popular right-wing competitors.

You see, in the UK we have a pretend conservative Prime Minister and as a result we've become quite adept at spotting pretend conservative candidates. There's nothing quite so terrifying as a right-wing journalist who spots a wounded fake.

And to the commenter who said "The reason for Britain's decline was not just that other nations refused to let them stay on top, but because Britain thought it was their right, and therefore didn't have to play ball." Please post your address and I'll send you a history book.

The reasons for our decline were primarily:

1. Because we got involved in a war out of principle rather than necessity (nobody attacked Britain or France at the start of WW2) and bankrupted ourselves fighting it. Unfortunate, but it was the right thing to do and something we did with our eyes wide open.

2. During that same war everything was directed towards war materials production (and I mean everything - you can still see the marks on walls surrounding many public parks and buildings where old railings and gates were removed so they could be melted down and used for war needs) and the government got into the habit of setting priorities for manufacturing, research, food distribution (rationing), etc. Fine during war, not so much during peacetime but if you give a Government structure extra powers, it's rare for those powers to be given back without a fight. Something I think you'll find out with healthcare "reform".

3. Because we won. We defended ourselves successfully and emerged from the war with mostly the same factories and working practices we went into it with. Our industry wasn't rebuilt from scratch to use the latest tools and processes having been reduced to rubble (like that of the defeated nations or those that had been conquered and then liberated). Our industry wasn't massively expanded with new shiny factories to cope with extra demand, we mostly just switched from producing stuff we liked to have to stuff we needed to have.

So by the end of the 40s we had old factories with exhausted equipment, out of date working practices, lots of government control and no money to change anything.

And I honestly don't know why you think including a few more paragraphs from Romney's book vindicates him. Highlighting his ridiculous comments about modern Britain is bad enough, but his simplistic, and just plain wrong, evaluation of the history of the United Kingdom, demonstrates his stunning ignorance.

“All Romney has to do, say nothing. It’s like a guy in the 100-meter dash. All he has to do is to finish, he doesn’t have to win. And instead, he tackles the guy in the lane next to him and ends up disqualified. I don’t get it.”

Jay said "There is no reason to do anything other than ridicule and mock them." That makes sense according to my general policy: take arguments as presented. Don't try to suss out deceitful underlying motives, because that way lies madness.

Intersting to see the trolls propagating the "out of context" lie, like little ideological lemmings.

Countless collectivists hold that same opinion and idea; that people with money should be economic slaves to the rest of the nation or "the people" "for the greater good". It is just a re-phrasing of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

If that were true they wouldn't have edited the "you didn't build that" part.

It wasn't dishonestly edited. The reason editing occurs is because his speech is longer than the news segment on which it airs. Romney <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-context-is-worse-than-the-quote.php>explains clearly</a> why the context is worse than that simple quote. In context, it is clear that Obama thinks that ALL success is happenstance and luck or due directly to government interference.

Andy R:Replacing a bust of Lincoln with one of Churchill is totally American!

Revenant:Good point. Churchill was the son of an American mother and a father from the British Empire. We don't need that sort of thing in the Oval Office! Anyone can see that a nice mid-western Republican is preferable to that.

Ken said, "In context, it is clear that Obama thinks that ALL success is happenstance and luck or due directly to government interference."

But here's the problem: lefties think Obama is the source of his own success. The whole philosophy falls apart if that's not the case. The big, great left leaders may have had a leg up here or there, but they are mostly just bigger and better than the rest of us.

Now, I would argue that Obama is obviously the recipient of a long series (including the 2008 election, in which I stupidly voted for him) of affirmative-action decisions. He was probably unqualified for Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard Law, and he was obviously unqualified for the U.S. Senate and the Presidency.

But in the leftist construction, he is a great human, better than you and I, who sometimes stumbles. Obama must think this about himself as well. Else how can he keep running this circus?

In context, it is clear that Obama thinks that ALL success is happenstance and luck or due directly to government interference.

In context it was quite clear he was talking about infrastructure and education. That's why it was edited out. Any dum dum out there should know a business can't exist without both of those. It's telling Romney feels he needs to push this line of attack, and after all, he doesn't seem to have much else.

Does anyone even know what Romney's plan for the economy is? Tax cuts?

And here is why the "you didn't build that" is associated with Socialism:

My husband, our friends and I worked hard in the USSR. Fresh from college, full of enthusiasm, we were in our prime years.

Soviet communists had created a system according to teachings by Karl Marx. This system was based on the principles of equality: Rich exploiters (private business owners) didn’t have a place in this “workers’ paradise.” Therefore, entrepreneurs were outlawed.

There were many talented inventors in the Soviet Union. To register their invention and obtain a patent, they had to include names of official communist leaders as co-creators, putting their names above their own. If government leaders could not comprehend the idea or its relevance to the future, the invention died.

Buck Smith makes a good point--until you factor in local taxes; real estate, state income and sales taxes, you really dont know what the total impact of taxation is. Here in Memphis/Shelby county we have a sales tax rate of 9.25. That seems to be highly regressive given the poverty rate in Memphis/Shelby county.

In context it was quite clear he was talking about infrastructure and education.

It is clear that this is not true when viewing the whole speech. The entire context was that hard work doesn't cause success, there are a whole lot of hardworking people out there! The entire context was that smarts doesn't cause success, there are a whole lot of smart pepole out there.

It's clear that in the context of the entire speech that he was not talking about infrastructure and education. This is something to which the left, and you, cling deperately. Otherwise, you'd have to admit that he doesn't believe hard work and smarts, i.e., initiative and creativity, leads to success.

It's telling Romney feels he needs to push this line of attack, and after all, he doesn't seem to have much else.

It's telling that you think the context of Obama's speech limits his denigration of success to saying Obama only meant infrastructure and education.

But here's the most important part: even if what you are saying is true (though it's clear that it's not), infrastructure and education does not cause success. The infrastructure is there for anyone to take advantage of. The education is the for anyone to get. What you desperately want Obama to have said is provably false.

Infrastructure and education are the result of success, not the other way around.

Does anyone even know what Romney's plan for the economy is?

It almost doens't matter. We know what Obama's plan for the economy is: command and control. He all ready took over a major auto company and a large part of the health care syste, sees the government monopoly of education as a good thing, dampened energy production, and denigrates success. If you want America to fail, don't change a thing.

I went through this yesterday, but for the slower in the audience like machine (garbage's ignorance is baked in), allow me to quote from neo-neocon's post of July 25:

But Obama's counting on the fact that people are sick of the whole thing, and since the MSM is saying the quote was taken out of context, they'll just buy it when he repeats that charge.

Note also that in this ad [Obama's "who you gonna believe? Me or your lyin' ears?" ad] Obama claims that in his original speech on small business, "What I said was that we need to stand behind them, as America always has." Note also that he doesn't show a clip of himself saying that, and that's because there isn't one; HE NEVER SAID THOSE WORDS. [My emphasis].

So if your Little Black Crackhead's words are so all out of context, riddle me this -

1. Why does the Romney campaign provide a link to the full speech, if they really thought the context would absolve Obama?

2. If Obama tells you he said "we need to stand behind them," why doesn't his commercial show him saying those words?

He's lying when he tells you "I didn't say that!" and he's lying when he tells you "THIS is what I said!"

"Rusty said... Every place England colonized they made better by bringing education, trade, and the rule of law."

Does history consider Napoleon a positive historical figure because his laws were a major advancement in many areas of Europe? Or do the decades of death his actions caused dampen that assessment somewhat?

The Brits fought many purely offensive campaigns (including at least one solely because they were bribed) and their actions had many devastating effects in India and elsewhere, including mass famine. Praising the result without recognizing the tremendous cost seems more than a little like the communists "you have to break a few eggs" approach. We shouldn't accept that in the past any more than we do now.

Britain had no tariffs on foods or manufactures from the mid 1800s on. None. Zilch. Nada. Zero. There were no subsidies or tariff barriers at all until the 1930s. At all. Customs duties were levied primarily on alcohol, tobacco, and commodities such as tea and coffee. Excise duties were internal taxes, again largely on alcohol.England was a low tax, free trade state till the Great Depression. Despite the propaganda to the contrary Britain still is a major manufacturing and trading economy. Quite how, otherwise, are we the 6th largest economy in the world? There's not that many of us.

Freder Frederson said...How much of GM does the federal government still own.

26%. What's your point.

7/27/12 8:27 AM

The point being the government shouldn't be owning any share of GM.

Freder doesn't understand the duck theory. If something acts like socialism it is socialism despite the labels. So sayeth CJ Roberts.

Actually Obama and the democrats are not so much old school socialists, at least not yet. Rather what they are Peronista's. Clever in a way, they reap the political benefit as well as the power without taking responsibility for running the enterprises. But in the end that to will fail.

Andy R. What's going on is there is an indirection here. State control of enterprise and the economy. It's not croney capitalism. The EPA ruling C02 is a toxic gas, as an example. The increase of rules and regulations. Sure, corporations are still "independent" enterprises with respect to profits, but there are strings attached, and at the top you have the master puppeteer pulling the strings.

It's another way of achieving socialism without calling it socialism. It's all around you.

Part of the problem as I see it with this system, is when government takes on this responsibility, it ends up owning problems it should not. Like the wall street bailouts. The government had a huge hand in the generating the housing bubble, as an example, and as such has dragged all us taxpayers into one of the messes some of the puppets made.

Althouse this statement of yours: don't know if he believes hardcore, but he is taking us in that direction and his campaign has framed the election as what I believe is a choice between socialism and capitalism.-- This statement shows such an ignorance of history and government structure and instead places a mythical belief that one man in the tangled web of a country controlled by financial interests and a military industrial complex surrounded by advisors connected to Goldman Sacks is leading us in the direction of socialism-- really. My respect for your intellectual chops has just gone down as you have reduced yourself to the level of propaganda for the Tea Party.

I've long wondered what the hell happened to Great Britain. Assuming what Romney wrote is true, that would explain it. Thanks for the full quote.

It's nice to know that Romney can see the problem clearly. The question is, is he actually willing to do the right things about it, or is he too much of an Establishment Republican to follow the advice he so clearly laid out?

He is making the case that your environment had everything to do with how you achieved. And depending on how far he throws the net of "environment", it includes everything, the intelligence provided by your genes, the fact that you were born today, the fact you were in the right place at the right time, the "Julia" government infrastructure.

This statement shows such an ignorance of history and government structure and instead places a mythical belief that one man in the tangled web of a country controlled by financial interests and a military industrial complex surrounded by advisors connected to Goldman Sacks is leading us in the direction of socialism

This shows such an ignorance of history and government structure and instead places a mythical belief that moneyed interests, particularly the military industrial complex, were NOT backing the socialists and communists in order to take ever more from the common man.

You write, Ann, that you believe Obama has no "hidden agenda," that he is just more or less inadvertently leading us down the road to socialism. I give the President more credit in this regard than you do. Remember, he announced his intention to "transform" America.

R/V, a helpful word - anyone who continues to use the term military-industrial complex nearly 60 years after Eisenhower introduced it to the national discourse and uses it without irony reveals a mind utterly calcified in its thought processes.

Marshal said..."Rusty said... Every place England colonized they made better by bringing education, trade, and the rule of law."

Does history consider Napoleon a positive historical figure because his laws were a major advancement in many areas of Europe? Or do the decades of death his actions caused dampen that assessment somewhat?

The Brits fought many purely offensive campaigns (including at least one solely because they were bribed) and their actions had many devastating effects in India and elsewhere, including mass famine. Praising the result without recognizing the tremendous cost seems more than a little like the communists "you have to break a few eggs" approach. We shouldn't accept that in the past any more than we do now.

The Brits fought wars against France and Holland for commercial reasons. The conclusion that they were more free trade than other nations because they lacked a certain type of tax for a certain period of time misses the forest for the trees.

Cedarford babbled:"Romney makes some good points about the UK vs. Europe...but in going into the old Free Trade for Freedom Lovers Republican mantra...ignores that Continental Europe threw tariffs against Britain so they could develop their own industries the UK dominated, briefly...steel, mechanized clothing mills, railroad equipment.Same as the US did."

Ah, so much ignorance stuffed into so few words. My hat is off to you.

So what? So what that other countries decided to harm themselves w/ tariffs etc.? Romney's point is that the British response of propping up losing industries, instead of building new ones, accelerated their decline.

You want to be the world leader? Then you have to keep on leading the way. You have to keep on making new things. You can't do that if you have your workers and your economy tied up unproductively making old things.

But constantly coming up with the hot new thing produces a society with regular and significant replacement of elites. It requires and imposes Schumpeter's "creative destruction." It requires and imposes upward and downward mobility.

If the people at the top don't want to let newcomers in, and have the power to block them, if the people in the middle and bottom don't want to see those next to them rise above them, then you're going to get the kind of situation Romney describes. You're crippling yourself, no outside help needed.

Britain had India and China as mostly locked up markets, The had control of the seas, and shipping was a much cheaper way to get good to market than anything available on land at the time. This meant they had the best chance to be selling things to the US, Canada, and Latin America, as well as all of Asia.

They didn't lose because "they couldn't sell to Europe." Their "internal market" was bigger than Europe, and bigger than the US. They had to do it to themselves.

This is the best explanation I've seem for HOW they did it to themselves.

Garage; The very best ad is the one that has the entire Obama speech unedited. You have obviously never seen the whole thing yourself. The bit about 'you didn't build it" is not even the most telling part. The paragraphs before he speaks with venom with contempt and with belief. These are the paragraphs where he implies that your brains don't get you rich and where hard work doesn't account for your success. this is the part of the speech where the audience understands completely what he is saying. You would be rich if you were luckier. Your work is what has made the rich guy rich.

The entire speech is much much worse than the stupid "you didn't build it" sentence. But you didn't listen to the whole speech did you?

Gregq - You want to be the world leader? Then you have to keep on leading the way.

Yes. Observe the Manchu Dynasty. So afraid of their vast peasant underclass and continually worried about losing their hold on power if outside influences should "poison" China that they banned travel, attempted to create wholsale illiteracy, excluded outsiders and made innovation - even for something as trivial as a better birdfeeder - punishable by death.

@Michael,The entire speech is much much worse than the stupid "you didn't build it" sentence. But you didn't listen to the whole speech did you?Of course he didn't. He doesn't need to, since he has his carefully-predigested talking points all ready to go.No thought required, just add partisan bile.

Re: Tax rates-If there are two taxi drivers, and one is lazy and only works half a shift, and the other is hard working and works a full shift and overtime, I don't see why the guy who is hard working should pay a dime more than the guy who is lazy. In fact, I think the guy who works hard should pay less, certainly as a percent, and less in total taxes.

Even if he drives on 'government roads'. Actually they are public roads, maintained (often poorly) by the government, using taxes garnered from working people who use the roads.

If an business owner provides a service, and hires people to help him provide that service, I think he is doing a great good, one that should justify him paying lower tax rates, not more.

By contrast, a person who doesn't work, who spends his time idle and drunk, who committs frequent crimes should be taxed at a very high rate, if we could figure out how to do that. Such a person should be convicted of their crimes, and locked up, and given opportunity to learn to be sober and hard working.

Foreign Policy magazine is owned by the Washington Post Company--and is now just another lefty media rag. Formerly, I believe it was published by one of the Pew Charitable Trust entities, and considered nearly on par with Foreign Affairs, published by CFR. Don't be misled by their title.

1. The UK makes lots of stuff and exports stuff right round the world.The UK is one of the world's largest manufacturing expoers, as well as the world's leading financial centre (NY is the US's leading financial centre).So Romney was just flat out wrong about this.2.Imperial Preference didn't get started to the Great Depression (Q. Who started the Great Depression and imposed punitive tariffs to shut down transatlantic trade? This was not a great period in US history. Insisting Europeans paid their debts to the US - I agree with this - but making it impossible to sell stuff to the US so they could do so. Oh, and lecturing the French about writing off Germany's reparations while insisting on their own debts being paid in full). When I said Britain was a free trade state I meant it. There were no subsidies to prop up failing industries nor tariff barriers to protect local firms against foreign competition. You must be thinking of a country closer to home. If you want subsidies, what about the latest Farm Bill? Subsidies for ethanol production, subsidies for sugar growing, subsidies for corn. If you want tariffs to protect local failing industry may I direct your attention to the US Steel Industry - Bush introduced 30% tariffs. Or how about the cosy relations between the Defense Department and Boeing, using defense subsidies to compete commercially.3. The analysis that free trade, no subsidies and openness to change is, in my view, correct. But buttressing a good analysis with inaccurate facts is distressing and insulting. I'm quite well disposed to Romney, but not so much, now.

Andy R, Obama is at heart a Social Democrat, which is what modern socialism is in Europe. You know, Europe? The place where liberals always tell us things are so great because of socialized medicine, etc.? Yeah, that place.

Hell yes Obama would love to turn this into a socialist country! What exactly do you not comprehend when the man says he wants to "fundamentally transform the country" during his term? If you want to mince words about ACA not being completely socialized medicine then you have to overlook Obama's own words about the bill being the first step to a single payer system. That is the white whale fo9r Democrats in this country and has been since FDR. If you can't be honest about the Democratic Party wanting socialized medicine then you have no credibility. And Obama is no run-of-the-mill Democrat. He's all-in for SOCIAL JUSTICE, "managed capitalism"(i.e. "soft" socialism or mini-fascism, you pick the term that best describes the extrajudicial exponents to the GM deal), international sovereignty (see UN Small Arms Treaty for example) over Americans, and other hallmarks of the traditional communist/socialist/american workers party agenda.

So while I can firmly assert he walks like a commie, quacks like a commie (collectivist, "spread the wealth") and looks like a commie (holding hands with his good buddy Chavez); because he has not the power to enact nor the honesty to admit his socialistic intentions.

When I hear or read the phrase "tax the rich" with whatever that phrase is attached, it is the exact same thing, and I mean the exact same thing as shouting directly into my ear

HELLO I'M AN IDIOT LOL

I reel, and think while reeling, why did they do that?

It has to be the stupidest bandwagon I've witnessed. Wait, second stupidest and second most enduringly resolutely mean spirited.

Forget bandwagon.

You know how you have a salt shaker and you sprinkle a little here and sprinkle a little there to spice things up? This is similar, a 'tax the rich' shaker, sprinkle here sprinkle there. A Koch Bros. shaker, here there, sprinkle. There are many others too. You can form a regular curry in one paragraph and sometimes even a single sentence, sprinkle this, sprinkle that, this and that, and that and that, bang! Curry paragraph. Without a single originally personal thought, all borrowed thoughts.

Hostess, I found this an excellent and insightful post. I like the way you steer it. Thank you for using your Kindle having those books and doing this digging. The Romney passages are interesting too. It's like looking at one side of a prism but it does reflect a lucid image and I take it as selections meant to inform our own country's choices.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

I wanted to add snarky thoughts to that Heinlein quote, but I refrained in the hope that perhaps just one person who has been persuaded that our problems are mostly because we don't tax the rich enough might just pause and think it through.

One thing is very clear to me: regardless of his other faults, W clearly assumed the responsibilities of President of the United States. He governed with a mostly-conservative philosophy, but he governed as the President of all of us.

That was why so many of those suffering from BDS had to say, "He's not my President!" Because it was obvious he was the President of the whole use, supporters and dissenters all.

But Obama has never actually become President of the United States. He has always been the President of the Democrats who saw any and all conservatives/Republicans as his enemy: people and ideas to overcome, dismiss, or eradicate. Every single thing he has done as President has clearly and obviously been for the benefit of his ideology, his party, or his re-election chances. He has never once done anything just because it was good for the whole nation.

Yes, that includes the no-brainer of infiltrating the bin Ladin compound. That was the one moment he could have done something for the entire US, but instead he made it into something about him, to increase his chances for re-election, so he could better defeat conservative/Republican ideology for the benefit of his party and his ideology.

He never does or says anything without adding some aspect to stick a thumb in the eye of conservatives, Republicans, or rich people.

It is one thing to govern without giving in to the opposition party. It is another thing to govern in complete disregard and disdain for the opposition party.

In the first case, you are using your viewpoint to do what you think is best for the country as a whole, even if some people disagree with you. In the 2nd case, you are deliberately telling approximately half the US to go pound sand, that you will go out of your way to punish groups of people for a differing ideology.

Which is why you get the mayors of Boston and Chicago using a CEO's opposition to SSM as a pretext for rejecting Chik-fil-A, while embracing Islamic leaders that actually preach killing gays as punishment ordained by God.

It's because the Chik-fil-A owner has the audacity to be a conservative!